The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparison of nanoparticle and fine particle uptake by Daphnia magna
Abstract
The use of nanoparticles in various applications is steadily on the rise, with use in a range of applications, including printer toner, sunscreen, medical imaging, and enhanced drug delivery. While research on human effects via, for example, inhalation is relatively well developed, the environmental assessment of nanoparticles is in its infancy. In the present study, we assessed the uptake and quantitative accumulation, as well as the depuration, of a model nanoparticle, a 20-nm fluorescent carboxylated polystyrene bead, in the aquatic invertebrate Daphnia magna and compared it to a larger, 1,000-nm particle. Using confocal microscopy, rapid accumulation in the gastrointestinal tract was observed within an hour of exposure to both particle sizes in both adults and neonates. Fluorescence could also be observed in the oil storage droplets, suggesting that both particle sizes have crossed the gut's epithelial barrier. Quantification of fluorescence of both sizes of particles showed that although uptake of the 20-nm particles was lower in terms of mass it was equal to or greater than 1,000-nm particle uptake when expressed as surface area or particle number. Depuration was relatively rapid for the 1,000-nm beads, decreasing by more than 90% over 4 h. In contrast, depuration of the 20-nm beads was less extensive, reaching 40% over 4 h. Transmission electron microscopy confirmed uptake of 1,000-nm beads, but uptake of 20-nm beads was inconclusive since similar-sized inclusions could be observed in control treatments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Eerkes-Medrano, D., Thompson, R. C., & Aldridge, D. C. (2015) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.012 · Cited by 2,638
Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: what we know and what we need to know
Wagner, M., Scherer, C., Alvarez-Muñoz, D., Brennholt, N., Bourrain, X., Buchinger, S., Fries, E., Grosbois, C., Klasmeier, J., Marti, T., et al. (2014) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0012-7 · Cited by 1,543
Turning microplastics into nanoplastics through digestive fragmentation by Antarctic krill
Dawson, A. L., Kawaguchi, S., King, C. K., Townsend, K. A., King, R., Huston, W. M., & Bengtson Nash, S. M. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03465-9 · Cited by 1,023
Mattsson, K., Johnson, E. V., Malmendal, A., Linse, S., Hansson, L.-A., & Cedervall, T. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-10813-0 · Cited by 823
Ding, J., Zhang, S., Razanajatovo, R. M., Zou, H., & Zhu, W. (2018) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.001 · Cited by 766
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenkranz, P., Chaudhry, Q., Stone, V., & Fernandes, T. F.
- Venue
- Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-10-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2142-2149
- ISSN
- 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8618
- OpenAlex
- W2169508979
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of nanoparticle and fine particle uptake by Daphnia magna. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1897/08-559.1
- The paper
- Rosenkranz, P., Chaudhry, Q., Stone, V., & Fernandes, T. F. (2009). A comparison of nanoparticle and fine particle uptake by Daphnia magna. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1897/08-559.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.